pietercharles said:
[quote=Evertype]I do wonder why you used "sonants" which is a vague and appears to mask the intent of your comment. As does your peculiar use of idiom.

I've noticed something similar.

I do wonder, often, why you, "marhak" and Eddie-C suddenly break into something resembling estuary English - 'wanna', 'gotta', 'ain't', 'yeah', 'nah', 'fink', double negatives - that sort of thing. [/quote]I cannot speak for Craig and Eddie. When I use "yeah" and "nah" and "gotta" and "wanna" (the last I use in the phrase "wanna-be") it is my native Pennsylvania English, used precisely for rhetorical effect. I would not use "fink" and would typically not use double negatives. No Estuary English on my part.

There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it, and it's not at all clear what it signals. Sometimes you're just being rude, sometimes you're having a joke amongst yourselves, sometimes you're being perfectly serious. Sometimes you're even being quite reasonable.

It's very odd behaviour.

Naaah, it's just expressive rhetoric.

By the way, is
Evertype said:
a vague

some kind of wave, the use of which is an attempt to emulate Eddie-C's command of the French language and use of le mot juste ?

It was evident that perghennogi was a mistake well before any discussions on Spellyans, but thank you for reminding us about it. [/quote]Your persistent cool hostility is ever so gracious. You must be great fun down the pub.

I do wonder why you used "sonants" which is vague and appears to mask the intent of your comment.

I was referring to the use of to represent //N// (or //nn//) in unstressed syllables. In earlier versions of KS, the digraphs and were limited to positions where RLC had and respectively. The forms you gave indicate a move towards a more morpho-phonemic representation of fortis sonants.

We consider the SWF's use of and to indicate sounds which have little if any currency in Revived Cornish to be a fault, and in particular we consider the fact that RLC users cannot rely on the RMC spelling in terms of pre-occlusion to be prejudicial and unnecssary.

Albert - Tota Cornicitas means exactly that. That pre-occlusion has its rightful place in the revived language and that alternative graphs should refer exclusively to it. However, non-traditional graphs that invite confusion should not be included. That was the SWF intention until silly and unnecessarily confusing suggestions like *jynn (engine) and *gonn (gun) were introduced after the AHG meetings.

mm and nn were only to be written when stressed, and where pre-occlusion demonstrably occurred.

Similarly with (i) and . The former was to denote long I, the latter the short I. Now we get lunacy such as kegin (kitchen) which was never, ever, pronounced "keg-EEN", but the spelling suggests that it was.

It is no "pity" that KS supports the two dialect phonologies which are actually in use by Revivalists, and which have been in use from the beginning of the Revival.

Ken George himself, as you well know, does not pronounce Cornish with geminate consonants, and neither does anyone else, except perhaps Ben and some of his students. They've had twenty years to implement their experiment, and it's been a complete failure. They substitute short [ɪ] for their theoretical long [ɪː], making those words rhyme with words with genuine short [ɪ]. No one says [ˈkemːɪn] (or [ˈkemmɪn] as the Gerlyvrik has it). They say [ˈkɛmən] or [ˈkɛmᵻn]. And you know it.

Your own SWF specification is, in fact, offensive in claiming that [bɪːz] is the "RMC" pronunciation of what KS writes as bÿs. Unified Cornish, which is RMC, has never taught that pronunciation, but rather [biːz].

You may, on theoretical grounds, admire George's theories and his reconstruction. I remember you telling me that you didn't care about Traditional graphs. It's little surprise to me that you admire George's reconstruction as far as the nasal consonants are concerned, as you are a Bretonist. Cornish is not Breton however, and two decades have shown us that the "aspiration" to introduce geminate consonants in the pronunciation of Revived Cornish has failed and will fail to succeed even though the SWF gives it lip-service.

KS considers mm and nn to be RMC dialect preference graphs and considers it appropriate to linked these to the RLC dialect preference graphs bm and dn, without any exceptions. Similarly, KS considers ÿ to be a RMC dialect preference graph and considers it appropriate to linked these to the RLC dialect preference graph ë, without any exception, and without any confusion with y and e used for other purposes. KS is consistent in this matter. There is nothing to "pity" about this.

The SWF's lack of consistency in its use of graphs which give clear guidance to users of both RLC and RMC dialects is one of its faults. Perhaps you wish to blame the AHG for it, but their name isn't on the document.

If Palores wants to be considered 'an expert' like those two, he really needs to learn that when someone points out a mistake the appropriate response is to call them 'nasty', 'snide', 'unpleasant' and the like, before then flouncing off in a huff.

Evertype said:
Albert,
It is no "pity" that KS supports the two dialect phonologies which are actually in use by Revivalists, and which have been in use from the beginning of the Revival.

It is a pity, however, that KS *only* supports UC/R and RLC phonologies.

Ken George himself, as you well know, does not pronounce Cornish with geminate consonants, and neither does anyone else, except perhaps Ben and some of his students.

Geminates were a part of traditional Cornish, so they merit a place within the construct of tota Cornicitas. This is irrespective of whether Ken George or Nicholas Williams use them in daily speech.

You may, on theoretical grounds, admire George's theories and his reconstruction.

No. I don't "admire" any phonological theory or reconstruction. They are there to be checked and discussed, and - if found to be useful - made use of.

I remember you telling me that you didn't care about Traditional graphs.

And everyone on this forum will remember you telling us that you care. Fine. Both positions are valid, and under normal circumstances we would agree to disagree. But the thing is that you want to force everybody to use what fits your own definition of "traditional". This I cannot accept.

It's little surprise to me that you admire George's reconstruction as far as the nasal consonants are concerned, as you are a Bretonist.

I am, first and foremost, a phonologist. Breton only came into the deal at a later time. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to what I think about Cornish phonology. To think that I "want to make Cornish look more Breton" or anything of the kind would be a red herring.

Everybody seems to agree that pre-occluded [bm] and [dn] are reflexes of earlier [mm] and [nn], so why should the latter pronunciation be actively proscribed in Revived Cornish or declared "not to have a place in it", which is what you seem to be aiming at?